Building the Kinetic DJ

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2008, 17:22
by proudpop
Continuing this thread from "scale models".

Started on the tail of the Kinetic DJ this morning. I'm building it along with 3 Tamiya CJ's so I'll use the Tamiya as a reference (maybe not the best idea).

The Tamiya kits as a rule are 1) Open box, 2) place a few drops of glue in box 3) shake box, 4) open box 5) remove finished model! :D

Disclaimer: This model should not be built until you have a few Hasegawa and Tamiya kits under your belt, or at least have their instructions available as a reference.

The Kinetic kit will return you to "old school" modeling. The tail pieces have many injector marks on them that have to be sanded/ground down (yes, the Dremel tool actually came out of its case). The vertical fin halves after gluing have a step along the leading edge seam. The dorsal has the same look from above as the Academy 1/32 kit (see pics). The vents F8 & F9 on the dorsal magically appear on the instructions without any mention of installing them. After assembly, the fit to the top of the fuselage was better that I expected, there is more gap on the Tamiya kit if you just use the poly-caps.
The detail lines/rivets are also more pronounced on the tail as mentioned before. I'll let you know how they look after weathering.

OK, so you have to tell yourself over and over, "This is not a Tamiya Kit".
You actually have to build, not just assemble it! After all the talk before its release, I didn't have high expectations. Having an new alternative, especially a new station wagon, is a nice change. OK, the kits not a Tamiya (said it again didn't I) but I still have one on backorder and I'm NOT going to cancel it! Stay tuned and thanks for reading through all this rambling-now go build you ownl!

RE: Building the Kinetic DJ

Unread postPosted: 30 Nov 2008, 03:50
by Habu
Ok tail base shape....yikes...
Thanks for doing this, though. I don't have the benefit of having it in hand, and won't for a while, so this is good info.

RE: Building the Kinetic DJ

Unread postPosted: 30 Nov 2008, 18:18
by Ruud
Hoi Proudpop,

Looking forward to more installments of this build review/comparison.

later
Ruud

RE: Building the Kinetic DJ

Unread postPosted: 01 Dec 2008, 20:31
by proudpop
Disclaimer: I'm going to attempt to build this kit OOB (out of the box)

Started on the cockpit. You have to install the rear seat side panels, then attach the armrest on the right wall of both pits, its a small part, cut it correctly and don't lose it! Then we come to the "ejection seats" :doh: I assembled them as per the instructions, I think! The back seat support is supposed to fit inside the rails, I think!
There was a hugh injector pin on the right seat half that has to be removed for the seat to "fit" in, BUT when the seat was fitted in and the glue dried, there was a gap between the seat cushion and the seat side (I filled it with Testor's clear parts cement). Once dried, the seat would NOT slide down into the tub! The back support made the rails too far apart. Before I start grinding, I have a few extra Hasegawa seats that I may try to install instead. I think I screwed the seats up too much! I'll try and test fit the Hasegawa and Tamiya seats tonight, we will see what happens. I can't be kit-bashing already! :nono:

RE: Building the Kinetic DJ

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2008, 00:06
by Habu
Why not resin seats?

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2008, 05:13
by proudpop
Check out the seat comparison. The Kinetic seat doesn't even look to scale. Not sure where I'm going with seats-resin is another option. I'm still trying my best to OOB it. Don't know about the seats though! Zoom in to get a better look.

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2008, 06:09
by Habu
Which seat is which?

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2008, 15:18
by proudpop
check the picture description it says L-R Tamiya, Kinetic, Hasegawa.

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2008, 23:53
by Habu
Didn't notice that. The Kinetic seat looks squat and out of scale.

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2008, 21:51
by Ruud
Hoi,

Looks a bit dwarfish... no offense to the dwarfs.

later
Ruud

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2008, 23:33
by Habu
I was gonna say Elven, but the Tolkien definition, Elves are as big as humans, so I'd go with Hobbitian. :-p

Continuing to build

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2008, 00:10
by proudpop
Lets look at the upper/lower fuselage.

Upper:
I attached the forward to the aft "just like" the Tamiya kit. Don't forget to remove to alignment pins from the front connector seam, they are not on the rear. The gap appeared after I removed the tape, glad I have some "Tamiya" putty. The rear panels are too thick and shaped wrong. I over worked the lower.

Lower:
The Ventrals appear to be at the correct angle, I don't know what all the fuss was about!

One little thing- The Panther on the right side should be a mirror image of the left side, they are both the same on the decal sheet. The paw should be forward on both sides. Maybe I'm to picky! :?

RE: Continuing to build

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2008, 00:44
by Habu
Ok, so more observations here. It's clear that the rear fuse sides have absolutely NO twist in them, like they should. Thus, no inherent anhedral for the stabs. The gap in the fuse parts is pretty big. And the ventral fins have about TWICE as much angle as they should. The angle should only be 15 degrees, that looks more like 30.

more reference pics

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2008, 01:26
by proudpop
Here's a direct comparison.

It looks like there is some twist, or am I just looking at the wrong area?

The Ventrals do have more angle!

Hey, I was a RU-21H crewchief, I know the angles on that beast!

RE: more reference pics

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2008, 05:54
by Habu
Ahhh, swell looking C-90 err...C-12! You sure it was the 12? I thought all the C-90 variants were C-6s.

Anyway, I hope you don't mind, I took your pics. They show perfectly what I'm talking about. I added the lines and text:
Image

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2008, 20:48
by proudpop
No joy on the pics or the text. all I'm getting is the small page with the red X.
The U-21 is a Queen Air Fuselage(non pressurized) with King Air wings (PT6A-20 turboprops)
It was replaced by the C-12 (Super King Air) I worked on one just like this after I left the Army.

RE: more reference pics

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2008, 22:28
by Habu
Hmm, dunno what the deal is on your end, I get the image just fine. Try viewing just the image itself. Ah, so you were army too eh? WO? And you flew fixed wing. Where from?

tail end

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2008, 20:56
by proudpop
Attached is a pic of the tail end taped together. I see the extra 15 degrees on the ventrals but the angle of the stabs looks OK. I must not be seeing what your seeing on the twist. Feel free to draw the angles again. I see the pics from the last page now. I was a crewchief (E-5) @ Ramstein from 79-82. I wasn't a perfect specimen for pilot training in the late 70's.

RE: tail end

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2008, 19:51
by Habu
Look closely at the Tamiya bottom fuselage. The sides, from the TE of the wings, back to the stab hole have a pronounced twist. That's what I'm talking about. The stabs on the Kinetic kit have the anhedral, but that's not a product of the twist in the sides of the fuse, as it is on the actual aircraft, or the Tamiya bottom.

RE: tail end

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2008, 21:33
by Boman
Proudpop

How did you solve the challenge of attaching the intake?

I've buildt the AM, I am building the DG and both are h**ll to get the intake to fit properly? Wondering if my next attempt will have to be assembled intake and duct, then attache those to the underside?

Thougths?

RE: tail end

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2008, 22:42
by Habu
I'm also curious to know how the intake was done. I'm hypothesizing that it's not got the correct shape either.

RE: tail end

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2008, 23:31
by Boman
Well, it appears OK - atleast to me.

Buildt the AM, and with the gear up. The main doors are too "flat", so they don't have the correct curve to follow the body of the airplane.

But back to the intake - it is a nightmare, and any advise is helpfull.

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2008, 23:44
by proudpop
Haven't got to put the Intake on yet, I'm still grinding all the pins from the intake ramp, cleaning it up and painting it. Actually I'm in the middle of building 4 Tamiya's and 3 Hasegawa CJ's for the 14 FS pilots!

Re: tail end

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2008, 00:19
by habu2
proudpop wrote:I see the extra 15 degrees on the ventrals but the angle of the stabs looks OK. I must not be seeing what your seeing on the twist. Feel free to draw the angles again.

I don't have the Kinetic kit in hand so I won't speculate about accuracy.

I will post what I posted in another forum to illustrate the rear strake anhedral angle issue.

Starting with the prototype YF-16s and shared with every single F-16A/B/C/D/E/F produced, the horizontal stabilizers have featured a 10 degree anhedral as shown in the following image:

Image

Note the speed brakes also share this ten degree anhedral. They don't open "up and down" but are splayed at ten degrees.

The trailing edge of the wing is at approximately fuselage station (FS) 409. The leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer is at approximately FS 460. If you look at the "side" face of the rear fuselage strake at the trailing edge of the wing it is vertical at this point, then gradually twists through an angle of ten degrees to match the anhedral of the horizontal stabilizers at their leading edge. This can be seen in this scan of the official General Dynamics F-16A/B loft lines:

Image

The surface of the fuselage, where the horizontal stabilizers attach to the fuselage, is perpendicular to the horizontal stabilizer, tilting outward at the top by a matching ten degrees from vertical. This is the area that has been hotly debated every time a new F-16 kit has been released. Some kits depict the ten degree twist, others mold the entire side as a flat vertical surface. The horizontal stab in a(ny) kit may depict the correct ten degree anhedral angle but the side of the fuselage strake where the stab pivots is the angle in question.

These loft line drawings have been published in the public domain since 1982. No manufacturer has any excuse for missing this detail unless it was a concession to mold design and expense - in that case it would have been intentional, not an oversight.

direct links to full resolution scans:

http://www.habu2.net/vipers/loftlines003e.jpg

http://www.habu2.net/vipers/loftlines002e.jpg

tail twist

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2008, 01:08
by proudpop
Do these pics help at all?

RE: tail twist

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2008, 01:23
by Habu
I didn't need the pics, but yes, they do festoon the claim. Like I said before, they have very little of the twist that I've described. It is a small issue, but as H2 said, there's no excuse for it when the profiles have been available for so long. Now I also agree that this may have been done because it wasn't feasible to do it correctly. But if that's true, then how did Tamiya get it right, and Kinetic not? Could they have been trying to make more with less? Possibly. Does Kinetic not have the same technology Tamiya has? Maybe. But the quality of the final product suffers, as has been aptly illustrated.

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2008, 20:13
by ViperEnforcer
habu2 wrote:
I don't have the Kinetic kit in hand so I won't speculate about accuracy.

I will post what I posted in another forum to illustrate the rear strake anhedral angle issue.

Starting with the prototype YF-16s and shared with every single F-16A/B/C/D/E/F produced, the horizontal stabilizers have featured a 10 degree anhedral

Note the speed brakes also share this ten degree anhedral. They don't open "up and down" but are splayed at ten degrees.

The trailing edge of the wing is at approximately fuselage station (FS) 409. The leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer is at approximately FS 460. If you look at the "side" face of the rear fuselage strake at the trailing edge of the wing it is vertical at this point, then gradually twists through an angle of ten degrees to match the anhedral of the horizontal stabilizers at their leading edge. This can be seen in this scan of the official General Dynamics F-16A/B loft lines:


I’ve explained the aft strake anhedral transition on a few occasions, but I don’t think many modelers understand the entire transition, structurally. The loft drawings help visualize this. I wish I could pull up the engineering brief I saw some 10 years ago that had reference extensions taped to the aft strakes (without the stab) which really displayed the whole anhedral transition to the layman. Also note the loft drawings are good for reference, but not really scale mapping, like dropping over photos of the real jet and/or built up models. Scale engineering drawings are much better suited.

habu2 wrote: The surface of the fuselage, where the horizontal stabilizers attach to the fuselage, is perpendicular to the horizontal stabilizer, tilting outward at the top by a matching ten degrees from vertical. This is the area that has been hotly debated every time a new F-16 kit has been released. Some kits depict the ten degree twist, others mold the entire side as a flat vertical surface. The horizontal stab in a(ny) kit may depict the correct ten degree anhedral angle but the side of the fuselage strake where the stab pivots is the angle in question.


Also, some kits do not tool in the “enough” anhedral.

The problem with the Kinetic kit is that it does not have the proper 10 degree anhedral. It’s closer to 5.5 to 6 degrees. At first glance in the kit, it was not even noticeable and that is because it was engineered too subtle and lacking about half the anhedral. The Tamiya kit has a notciable anhedral transition, with the “correct” lower indented curvature.

I slaved the fuselages together of the Kinetic kit, then installed the stabs once all the parts were cleaned up. The stabs will slope down at 10 degrees due to the excessive amount of “slop” I the stab pin fit. This also results in a gap at the top pin pivot area, which is also compounded by a “coke-bottle” effect of the upper stakes, in the same area.

I think it should be noted that the speed brakes are real close to 10 degrees, but that does not mean that the aft strake side are at the same angle. The Academy 48th F-16 kit proves this point, as the speed brake trailing edges angle at near 10 degrees anhedral, yet the aft strake sides have absolutely not anhedral! This has been noted in my review of Academy’s F-16, posted on other forums.

habu2 wrote: These loft line drawings have been published in the public domain since 1982. No manufacturer has any excuse for missing this detail


These are the first set of F-16 drawings (Detail & Scale F-16A book, Volume 3) I recall using to compare actual F-16 kits for basic shape, years before I got to work the real jet.

I feel the same way, as there is no excuse to make such major mistakes in shape and profile accuracy. This is why I was so unforgiving with the Academy 32nd F-16, as not only did they botch so many areas in that kit, but repeated it in their 72nd scale F-16 release; Unbelievable!


habu2 wrote: unless it was a concession to mold design and expense - in that case it would have been intentional, not an oversight.


In the case of the Academy 48th & 72nd scale kit, it was intentional in lieu of cutting corners. That really does not make any less excusable than botching it.

Enter the Kinetic F-16 stigma. Before even seeing sprues, the amateur crowd was pumping the impending F-16 releases to be the next “Tamiya”, and even went as far to predict that they even eclipse Tamiya in tooling quality. Compile that and the over exuberance when test shots first were posted and you have a makings for a large bubble waiting to be pierced.

I saw the initial Kinetic Fuselage test shots and they were, to put it bluntly-ugly. Though they did improve most of the accuracy issues, the overly soft surface detail and trenchy panel lines still remained.

Here you have a company that has a nice approach to wanting to produce multiple F-16 variants, and for what ever reason does not take on a technical consultant (even after being offered), the one they have is not competent, or they just don’t listen.
Instead, Kinetic takes suggestions from a modeling forum through a second party. What’s up with that? You might as well be taking a Mall survey considering the differing amount of knowledge base you’ll be encountering. On top of that, most of the real subject knowledgeable modelers have since left that site. Not really a professional approach from “supposed” professional manufacture.

Overall, the Kinetic kit certainly does not live up to the hype. It could have been a real decent alternative to Tamiya if it where not for the sub par tooling and major profile/shape errors. The nose profile is the single worst aspect, and it really kills the overall looks of the real subject.

Modelers will still get the kit, as a lower priced alternative will often be put ahead of quality for those who are satisfied so long as it “looks like” an F-16. There will also be those who like myself, will build one just for review purposes and/or attempt to address most of the kit’s shortfalls.

BTW Proudpop, I like the in progress of your build. Keep posting updates when you can.

Mike V

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2008, 06:53
by Scorpion1alpha
proudpop wrote:Haven't got to put the Intake on yet, I'm still grinding all the pins from the intake ramp, cleaning it up and painting it. Actually I'm in the middle of building 4 Tamiya's and 3 Hasegawa CJ's for the 14 FS pilots!


Pretty cool. Busy man, aren't you.

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2008, 18:05
by habu2
oh boy here we go...

ViperEnforcer wrote:Also note the loft drawings are good for reference, but not really scale mapping, like dropping over photos of the real jet and/or built up models. Scale engineering drawings are much better suited.

What do you think loft line drawings are if they aren't "scaled engineering drawings?

ViperEnforcer wrote:These are the first set of F-16 drawings (Detail & Scale F-16A book, Volume 3) I recall using to compare actual F-16 kits for basic shape, years before I got to work the real jet.

No, these are not the D&S drawings. They are scanned from an official copy of the engineering drawings from General Dynamics. I got them from Jay Miller, who also published them in his (Aerofax) book.

ViperEnforcer wrote:In the case of the Academy 48th & 72nd scale kit, it was intentional in lieu of cutting corners.

And you know this how?

ViperEnforcer wrote:Here you have a company that has a nice approach to wanting to produce multiple F-16 variants, and for what ever reason does not take on a technical consultant (even after being offered), the one they have is not competent, or they just don’t listen.

OK now I understand your attitude - you had your feelings hurt because they wouldn't listen to you.

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2008, 19:03
by ViperEnforcer
habu2 wrote:oh boy here we go...


What do you think loft line drawings are if they aren't "scaled engineering drawings?

Scaling perspective. Also noting that the actual “draft line” of the drawings accounts for overlapping of the outline of a photo of the real or scale subject as well. It's good for reference, I just don’t put a lot of faith in them compared to cross sectionals.

habu2 wrote:No, these are not the D&S drawings. They are scanned from an official copy of the engineering drawings from General Dynamics. I got them from Jay Miller, who also published them in his (Aerofax) book.


Which are also the basic Loft drawings in the D & S book too. I’ve used the GD/LM loft, sectional, and die drawings before on more than a few occasions. We used the engineering cross sectional drawings for scale mapping for fabricating new panels. We also used loft drawings, but more or less for reference plotting.

habu2 wrote:
ViperEnforcer wrote:In the case of the Academy 48th & 72nd scale kit, it was intentional in lieu of cutting corners.

And you know this how?


Gee, I don’t know, maybe using a little common sense to realize when a product or kit has been down/up scaled with absolutely no regard for corrections. Then there’s just quality of the kit that can spell that out fairly well.

habu2 wrote:
ViperEnforcer wrote:Here you have a company that has a nice approach to wanting to produce multiple F-16 variants, and for what ever reason does not take on a technical consultant (even after being offered), the one they have is not competent, or they just don’t listen.


OK now I understand your attitude - you had your feelings hurt because they wouldn't listen to you.


Please dude, get a clue. I could care less if they would have listened to me or not. Had they of requested assistance maybe so, but since they passed on that and others who well versed on the subject in that regard, it’s their sword to fall on.

So really you understand squat, in regard to that matter.

Mike V

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2009, 21:37
by Habu
Any updates pop?

Re: Continuing to build

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2009, 02:15
by AfterburnerDecalsScott
proudpop wrote:Lets look at the upper/lower fuselage.

Upper:
I attached the forward to the aft "just like" the Tamiya kit. Don't forget to remove to alignment pins from the front connector seam, they are not on the rear. The gap appeared after I removed the tape, glad I have some "Tamiya" putty. The rear panels are too thick and shaped wrong. I over worked the lower.

Lower:
The Ventrals appear to be at the correct angle, I don't know what all the fuss was about!

One little thing- The Panther on the right side should be a mirror image of the left side, they are both the same on the decal sheet. The paw should be forward on both sides. Maybe I'm to picky! :?



Actually, Eldrige can go either way....it splits about 50-50....samw way with the side of the samurai the sword is on for the 14th.

Image

Image

Image

Image

RE: Re: Continuing to build

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2009, 02:27
by Habu
Hey! Who let you in here? :-P

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2009, 03:42
by proudpop
I've been busy making 2 Hasegawa's and 4 Tamiya's for our heroes in the desert.

I did assemble the intake for the DJ. The attached pic shows the gap in the front.

The DJ is a hard build after all these Tamiya's.

I'm ready to finish the DJ cockpit and glue the halves together,

Yes, that's the Lost in Space Pod in the background- a little change once in a while keeps me sane!

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2009, 06:40
by Habu
Dude that looks like LM's assembly line!

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2009, 18:48
by JochemP
Any progress? Can't wait to see the nose of the kinetic kit, is it true that the nose comes out funny, like a Mitsubishi F-2?

Cheers Bro'

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2009, 13:58
by Scorpion1alpha
You like Vipers, don't you? LOL

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2009, 20:30
by Habu
JochemP wrote:Any progress? Can't wait to see the nose of the kinetic kit, is it true that the nose comes out funny, like a Mitsubishi F-2?

Cheers Bro'


The nose is funny, but not like an F-2. The F-2 just has a broader nose. The Kinetic sticks up awkwardly and does not have the right profile.

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2009, 18:53
by JochemP
Habu wrote:
JochemP wrote:Any progress? Can't wait to see the nose of the kinetic kit, is it true that the nose comes out funny, like a Mitsubishi F-2?

Cheers Bro'


The nose is funny, but not like an F-2. The F-2 just has a broader nose. The Kinetic sticks up awkwardly and does not have the right profile.


So, it does not have the right profile, I'll wait to see it complete, anybody here knows of a built kit or other forums w/ that topic? just point me somewhere.

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2009, 19:02
by proudpop
A test fit of the nose doesn't look bad (I'll add a pic later). Upon assembling the Harms, the seperate front fins that attach to the missile aren't molded all the way. The leading edges at the root are curved, they should look like the cranked arrow shape of the -XL (I'll take a pic of this too, later)

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2009, 19:13
by Habu
How's it coming now, pop? At leas, how's the other air force doing, if you haven't gotten to work on the DJ?

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2009, 03:03
by proudpop
Here's some pics to support(?) the previous few threads. I'm almost ready to weather the Samurai's.
When they are finished, I'll finish the Kinetic DJ and the Polish Block 52.

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2009, 04:36
by Habu
Lovely! Good work!

But could the panel lines on those HARMs BE any more trenchy? Looks like it was made of Legos.

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2009, 19:09
by JochemP
Good Job, thnx for sharing, this thread has been really helpful to clear any doubts I had 'bout this kit.
I'm gonna get a DJ/DG.

I saw a kinetic DJ + CMK conversion + CFT as HAF F-16D blk 52 in an Greek scale model site, (but can't find it anymore) Can somebody who speaks greek give me vectors?

Cheers.

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2009, 19:17
by Habu
Somebody did all that to make a HAF Viper? Why not just get the Hasegawa kit?

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2009, 14:23
by Scorpion1alpha
I dunno, that two-seat canopy's shape and size don't look right to me.

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2009, 20:30
by JochemP
Found the Kinetic DJ in the Greek scale model site, here's the link

http://www.modelclub.gr/forums/index.ph ... 426.0.html

The guy used both kits, an AM + DJ + CFT = HAF Blk 52, the inside story ...ups!
I'm not fluent in Greek

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2009, 20:51
by Habu
Ugh...I dunno, I just can't get past the shape of that nose...

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2009, 20:59
by ViperEnforcer
Same here, the dorked up nose is really a Viper eye-sore.

A decent attempt, though it is kind of a rough build. Kinetic is soon to release the F-16I and F-16CDPolish Viper. If going the Kenetic route you may want to wait and see if one of these might work for ya.

Mike V

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2009, 00:30
by pucara70
proudpop wrote:Here's some pics to support(?) the previous few threads. I'm almost ready to weather the Samurai's.
When they are finished, I'll finish the Kinetic DJ and the Polish Block 52.


Thank you a lot for adding the side view of the Kinetic kit vs. the Tamiya kit!!!, I was looking for a pic like that through all the net....well, it is true that the Tamiya nose is better, more "accurate", but I don´t see that the Kinetic nose is all that wrong some claim in the modeling forums....I mean, that nose is by no means a reason for not buying this kit...it has a lot of advantages over its adversaries, I think it is a very competitive kit...besides, no kit is perfect, something that most modellers forget easily, they aren´t the "real" thing...only representations of the real thing...as I am not a river counter and don´t put my models at contests I follow this rule a friend told me (a good canadian one)....if once the model is finished, it represents what it is supposed to..and you like it....then it is a superb model!!!!. Just my two cents...thanks again for the pics...!

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2009, 00:57
by Habu
That...the nose is pretty bad. Perhaps you're not as familiar with the shape, but for us that have been building them for many years, it's quite apparent.

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2009, 05:26
by proudpop
pucara70 wrote:
proudpop wrote:Here's some pics to support(?) the previous few threads. I'm almost ready to weather the Samurai's.
When they are finished, I'll finish the Kinetic DJ and the Polish Block 52.


Thank you a lot for adding the side view of the Kinetic kit vs. the Tamiya kit!!!, I was looking for a pic like that through all the net....well, it is true that the Tamiya nose is better, more "accurate", but I don´t see that the Kinetic nose is all that wrong some claim in the modeling forums....I mean, that nose is by no means a reason for not buying this kit...it has a lot of advantages over its adversaries, I think it is a very competitive kit...besides, no kit is perfect, something that most modellers forget easily, they aren´t the "real" thing...only representations of the real thing...as I am not a river counter and don´t put my models at contests I follow this rule a friend told me (a good canadian one)....if once the model is finished, it represents what it is supposed to..and you like it....then it is a superb model!!!!. Just my two cents...thanks again for the pics...!


I agree. The new Tamiya kits are obviously outstanding kits and I think a very high standard has been set that all others have to live up to. I have 4 of the Kinetic DJ's and one -AM on hand to build. The Kinetic's definitely have their flaws but for the average model builder who has never spent time around the F-16 (except visiting their kid who's flying them) I think that the Kinetic DJ will fill a void until Tam comes out with the station wagon. The amount of armament that comes with the kit is a definite plus, since you can't get the Hasegawa Weapons D anymore! I have the Tam Aggressor on order and I am anxiously looking forward to getting that in my hands! Having built double digit Tam Block 50 kits, the Kinetic kits are rough, but do-able. I know that there are problems with it but I'm looking forward to building them-I just can't find anyone who wants a "station wagon" model built to their specs. I am just about finished the next 6 (4 Tam's and 2 Hasegawa's) to send to the 14FS. (check out the Block 50's to the desert thread) Once they are in the mail, I going to finish the Kinetic DJ OOB. So stay tuned!

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2009, 13:45
by pucara70
Proudpop , I totally agree with you....that´s what I meant when I say that for a non expert modeller or the ones that take part at contests, or all ones wich thinks that everything in a kit is wrong (Trumpeter Panther and so on..), the Kinetic option is a good one, plus, it have advantages over the other manufacturers (a lot of weapons, modern ones, good decals, modern versions and so on)....I insist on this point, there is not a perfect kit....even Hasegawa or Tamiya ones have flaws....it seems that a lot of people criticise the "chinese" kits, simply because they´re chinese......but even Revell, Eduard, Hasegawa and Tamiya have made mistakes, but all kits are a fun build for the modeler who enjoys modelling and is not a "rivet counter", or take part at a contest...just my humble opinion...
Good work Proudpop!!!!!

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2009, 13:49
by pucara70
Habu wrote:That...the nose is pretty bad. Perhaps you're not as familiar with the shape, but for us that have been building them for many years, it's quite apparent.

Maybe I didn´t build a ton of them as you probably did, but I am not a moron and have plenty of photos, books and kits, plus I´ve seen the real thing at FIDAE...so I think I am familiar with the shape of the nose, and I said that the Tamiya kit is the more "accurate" in that part, but I don´t think that the Kinetic one is so awful to prevent an average modeler to buy it and enjoy it.....it depends on how "seriously" you take a hobby...for me the thing looks like an F-16, not like a Mirage III or an F-15 or MiG-29, it represents what it is expected from it, a decent F-16 Fighting Falcon...just my humble opinion.....

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2009, 19:45
by Habu
Here we go....:roll:

Facts are facts. There's several shape and fit issues with the Kinetic kit. The facts are indisputable.

But it's your money, so you'll get what you pay for. If you want to spend it on an inaccurate, ill-fitting kit, that is completely up to you. If you enjoy building it, and it looks like the subject to you, by all means....more power to you.

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2009, 23:03
by pucara70
Habu, then we have a deal!!, that´s what I meant to say in first place, but as my English is not so good, maybe I couldn´t explain my point better....anyone choose what he or she wants... :cheers:

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2009, 01:12
by Habu
No worries man. Have at it, build it up, post the pics, love to see them!

Back to the Kinetics Again!

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2010, 04:35
by proudpop
Been a while! Got back to the Kinetic kits, not only the Block 50 but now the Block 60. After sooo many Tamiya kits, the Kinetics are a real pain in the A@% to build (as 4 pages on this thread show), but it fills a need until Tam comes out with the B/D/F models. The ship loaded with ordnance is the only one finished. Yep that's a Warthog sticking it's tail in - took over the MI @ Selfridge, MI last year. :?

RE: Back to the Kinetics Again!

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2010, 05:37
by Habu
F model eh? I'm going to start my Tam conversion as soon as I can get a workbench up!

RE: Back to the Kinetics Again!

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2010, 14:23
by JochemP
Sweet!... mate can u post the whole fleet? lol... would like to see that bro'

Re: RE: Back to the Kinetics Again!

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2012, 20:33
by proudpop
JochemP wrote:Sweet!... mate can u post the whole fleet? lol... would like to see that bro'


I got pics of pretty much all of them here in the modeling forum just check for posts from "proudpop"